Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....

Cheers,

b&

I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms. I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).

How would you compare the 24 against the new Sigma 35 for portraiture?I'm currently using the Canon 50 f/1.4 on a APS-C body, and while it's great, it is a little too long for indoor work, unless you are doing tight crops.So, if you wanted a wider lens to complement your 50 (x1.6 = 80) for portrait work, would you go with the Canon 24L (x1.6 = 38.4) or the Sigma 35 (x1.6 = 56)?

How would you compare the 24 against the new Sigma 35 for portraiture?I'm currently using the Canon 50 f/1.4 on a APS-C body, and while it's great, it is a little too long for indoor work, unless you are doing tight crops.So, if you wanted a wider lens to complement your 50 (x1.6 = 80) for portrait work, would you go with the Canon 24L (x1.6 = 38.4) or the Sigma 35 (x1.6 = 56)?

If you're sticking with APS-C you might also want to consider Sigma's 30mm f/1.4, it's a solid performer, maybe not "pro" quality, but I owned it for a while and got really good use of it. Or maybe even the 40m f/2.8 (it's sharp and low cost). The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is pretty remarkable, look for my review very soon.

24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture, environmental work, like weddings of photojournalism, where you want to isolate a subject within an "area" are definitely great uses for this lens, and yes, also very good on a crop body, even avoiding a lot of the lens "flaws" like vignetting.

Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....

Cheers,

b&

I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms. I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).

In this I disagree. I have a multi zoom/prime kit, and the only zoom that I've seen produce a "look" like the 24mm prime is the new 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L II, wide open. It would, I think, complement someone with a 24-105, since that lens isn't particularly sharp at 24mm and starts at f/4... you're missing a lot of bokeh at that aperture. One of the reasons behind my original purchase of the 24 .14 was that I thought I could use it's shallow depth of field to isolate subjects in busy environments that I couldn't control.

My only fault there was that I didn't account for my own inability to properly focus the damn thing.

But your review has one portrait after another, and they're all really good! Indeed, I'd say that the 24 f/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses there is -- provided you're not trying to use it for headshots.

But your review has one portrait after another, and they're all really good! Indeed, I'd say that the 24 f/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses there is -- provided you're not trying to use it for headshots.

Cheers

b&

lol, okay true, I guess I was just interpreting the comment one way. It's *great* for the kind of portraiture I did with it

It seems like 7D users complain about AF with this lens more than anyone else.My copy focused very well at f/1.4 on my 5D3 and pretty well on my 5D2 and not badly on my 7D. I do see lots of 7D users complaining that it focuses terribly on their body though.

Anyway I sold mine for the 24-70 II though. I mostly used it stopped down and the 24-70 II is the one prime that can match the 24mm 1.4 II when both are stopped down. The 24 1.4 II had been among my most used lenses before though. I used the 760-200 f/4 IS and later 70-300L even more though.

Thanks a for another nice review, Justin. I particularly like the last portrait (couple shot). Great color - very cinematic, and the angle is great.

One additional benefit of shooting primes (and why I think everyone should spend at least some time with a few primes) is how the lack of zoom range makes you think more creatively about framing, angle of view, and DOF. Primes helps build creativity. My personal kit is a mix of primes and zooms, and I like them both for different reasons.

I bring that up to say that your last shot to me is the kind of shot that one learns to take primarily be shooting primes and boosting creativity.

I find few uses for f/1.4 at 24mm. I much prefer the 35mm focal length personally and there are some great options for the 35mm f/1.4 lenses too. Personally, I'm a new fan of the Sigma because of the sharpness but it is hard to argue with the Canon version either. Maybe Canon will replace it this year.Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4 - Fight!